Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 22: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:02, 5 April 2022

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duhfault

Submitted in good faith, I believe, but this is a dictionary definition and also a neologism. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also, please take note that I have supplied a valid reason for deletion, rather than asking a question. Meelar (talk) 00:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete/Transwiki. Dicdefs as good as they can be don't belong in Wikipedia. --Neigel von Teighen 00:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Lacrimosus 01:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. --InShaneee 04:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A copy&paste of the Urban Dictionary entry, that aimed for the dictionary but hit the encyclopaedia instead. Urban Dictionary's terms of service [1] are not GFDL compatible, and this is a Copyvio. Uncle G 06:13, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Replace with redirect to Dilbert, DNRC or Induhvidual. Radiant _* 09:51, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism., copyright violation. Megan1967 06:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Journal of Young Adult Ministry

Non-notable ministry. Advertising. Rick K 00:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable, advertising. Lacrimosus 01:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, ad. Megan1967 05:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – AB CD 01:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caretaker Gazette

Non-notable publication. Advertising. Rick K 00:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

then please make sure that NEWSWEEK and TIME and the other publications listed on Wikipedia are also deleted in order to remove ALL publications. Gary Dunn 11:50, Mar 22, 2005

I didn't say all publications were non-notable. You're comparing apples and oranges. And your attempt at comparing your publication with Time and Newsweek is ridiculous. Rick K 21:18, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

weak keep. It is indeed a niche specialty; the gazeete got itself a certain amount of non-self google hits and mentioned in The Wall Street Journal. I say let it live as something unique, but the article needs work. Mikkalai 23:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, flag for re-write due to POV issues. Typical kind of thing that is non-notable to many, but they shouldn't stop the few. Pcb21| Pete 23:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

strong keep wikipedia should include as many diverse publications as possible. We should encourage more listings for every possible kind of publication. Sue 14:19, Mar 29, 2005

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grinell Smith

Non-notable educator who seems to have been fired, made fun of, and had his work deleted. Rick K 00:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, rubbish/personal attack. Lacrimosus 01:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having made the page, I believe it should be kept because it provides valuable information on the subject. The inside joke is actually true and well, I'm only adding the truth to the article. He has been fired but I'm providing this article for his many fans in the school to know where he's gone.

(I am at school, hence my IP change)

Unsigned comment by 205.237.38.18 (talk · contributions)

Delete. Not notable teacher. DaveTheRed 17:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a personal attack. — JIP | Talk 19:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He won an award for his distance education curriculum. He is indeed notable enough.

Unsigned comment by 64.18.164.153 (talk · contributions)

Delete. Not notable. --cesarb 21:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 20:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kanata United Church

This appears to be a vanity page for the user's church. It doesn't seem to be of any encyclopedic merit. There's many churches in the world, and I don't see anything that makes this one particularly special. --Screetchy cello 00:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, while many churches are worthy of inclusion this entry is pure self-promotion. - SimonP 01:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, vanity. Lacrimosus 01:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup and keep. --Spinboy 02:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, slef-promotion. --nixie 02:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, promotional. android↔talk 04:07, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup and keep. All public institutions are notable.--Gene_poole 04:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nothing to seperate it from your average run of the mill church. Out of curiosity, does your vote mean that you wish to keep articles on every church, post-office, and DMV in the world? DaveTheRed 04:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes. Absolutely. This is an encyclopedia, after all. --Gene_poole 22:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - You and I have very different notions about the definition of the word encyclopedia. DaveTheRed 00:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  Vote keep on Queen Street postbox! It makes sense, and you knows it! I think we can safely delete this without causing permanent damage to en:.Chris 21:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, some churches are notable; this one fails to show why it clears that bar. I fear that there may be many similar entries soon; someone has created a List of churches in the United Church of Canada. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 06:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This subject should be an article. However, the content as it is reads as vanity. I would consider changing my vote to Keep if someone in the know were to change the content. I'd rather have a redlink in requested articles than a stubby vanity piece. --Death phoenix 13:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agree with previous sentiments. Delete current version, but keep the page if someone brings it back later as a serious article. CJCurrie 16:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Generic, especially the mission statement. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, flag for rewrite. Current version is rubbish, but should serve as a better basis for future article than nothing on this encyclopedic topic. Pcb21| Pete 23:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect.

Comment: Someone has already been bold and created the redirect. Further discussions of which article should redirect to where should be done on the respective Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 20:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada

This page has become a basically out of date version of the Las Vegas, Nevada page. It has almost no contributions since it was created. It is not linked from other vegas pages. The discusions on the Las Vegas page have not indicated support for keeping this page. It is similar in name to the Las Vegas metropolitan area page which is linked to and seems better suited to being kept and renamed after additional discussion on the Las Vegas page.Vegaswikian 00:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can be bold and merge this with Las Vegas metropolitan area, after soliciting objections on the talk page. Good luck, and happy editing, Meelar (talk) 01:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually all of the material already exists on other pages and there is no need for merging any data.Vegaswikian 01:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - just redirect it then. DaveTheRed 04:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - The only real page that links here is a user page. I don't see a reason to use a redirect.Vegaswikian 06:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. There were a couple things in this article that should be salvaged. I put one of the photos in the main Las Vegas, Nevada article and one in Las Vegas Monorail, and some of the facts about the monorail into the main article. A redirect isn't all that important but it might as well be done, if only to lessen the chance that someone else will create an article at this title. JamesMLane 21:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Landmark decision

This is nothing but a bunch of inaccurate statements, a dicdef, and a POV list of cases by one country's highest court; this article has no hope of redemption. The precedential and binding effects it attributes only to "landmark cases" are true of ALL appellate court cases. EVERY court decision in common law countries is supposed to guide how future decisions come out (see stare decisis) and EVERY higher court decision is binding upon lower courts. Once you remove that, all you have is an arbitrary selection of only U.S. Supreme Court decisions (see List of United States Supreme Court cases for the much more complete list) and a one-sentence dictionary definition of a popular usage. ~~Delete~~ as inherently POV. I've also listed Category:Landmark cases for deletion for the same reasons. Postdlf 01:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) [see modified vote below]

Delete, arbitrary. Lacrimosus 01:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV, inaccurate. Binadot 02:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. innacurate206.222.192.151 03:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. inherently POV. DaveTheRed 04:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV and US-centric with no hope of improvement. Thryduulf 07:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) see changed vote below
Keep It's 100% POV and US-centric with no hope of improvement for sure. However, the existence of landmark cases is true. There are cases that redefined the law of the U.S. and they are called "landmark cases" or "landmark decisions" by legal professionals as well. A Google search of ("landmark decision" law) results in 88,300 hits. It's no different from cause célèbre. These cases are so-called textbook cases. There are forgotten cases, undisputed cases and cases only known by a few experts. Not all cases are equal. -- Toytoy 13:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Landmark decision in Black's Law Dictionary 6th ed.: A decision of the Supreme Court that significantly changes existing law. See e.g., Brown decision; Miranda rule. -- Toytoy 14:07, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - Landmark decision in Black's Law Dictionary 7th ed.: "A judicial decision that significantly changes existing law." It then gives examples of Brown and Palsgraf...you kids all know Palsgraf, right? You have a wiktionary candidate, that's all. Postdlf 14:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - I think any torts student knows Palsgraf. It's a weird, funny and "explosive" case. -- Toytoy 14:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    - No, we haven't. It's a straightforward combination of landmark and case with their ordinary dictionary meanings. Uncle G 18:19, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Delete and replace with redirect to famous law cases or something similar. Radiant _* 14:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Landmark Keep. A landmark case is something more than a mere precedent-setter - it is a case that sets forth a new direction in the law, or which explains the law in such a clear, concise, and convincing manner that it becomes the case cited in support of that principle. There are plenty of Supreme Court decisions that rely on a particular previous "landmark case", so in that sense, Toytoy is absolutely correct to analogize this to a cause célèbre. Think of it as a case célèbre. --BD2412 02:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A student of the U.S. laws must study some "landmark decisions" to know anything about the law. A Supreme Court justice does not say "Hey mom, were're setting up a landmark today!" But the fact is, most case books select their cases from an unofficial pool of the so-called "landmark cases". For example: when you talk about personal jurisdiction, you let your students study Pennoyer v. Neff. That's it! A case book may also cite some other less important cases. But they usually only cite a few paragraphs at most. You only let your students study landmark cases in full. -- Toytoy 07:21, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - A "landmark decision" is like a cult movie. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a cult movie. Plan 9 From Outer Space is another one. Jurassic Park is not a cult movie. This is not official. This is also highly POV and U.S.-centric. But anyone who knows anything about movies can tell you which movie is a cult movie. This analogy is also applicable to landmark decisions. -- Toytoy 07:48, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    - The point about those films, certainly Rocky Horror, is that it is not just a landmark case for the United States, as it is one in the UK as well and I think I'm right in saying other places as well. All the cases cited in this article and this VfD have been landmark cases in the USA, which affect USA case law only. If this article is to stand it must either be split into sections or sub-artciles for each country (potentially one for every common law jurisdiction), or renamed to reflect its limited scope. Thryduulf 08:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - I am a Chinese living in Taiwan. Our legal system is nearly 100% civil law. However, when we talk about due process, you know what ... we talk about the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and some cases such as Goldberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 254, and possibly, many other related German and Japanese legal principles. Law scholars in Beijing and Shanghai do the same thing all the time. I think it is a good idea that we rename this article to fit its U.S.-centric nature and only keep a dozen really undisputed cases that are truly ground-breaking and influential such as Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Marbury v. Madison and Miranda v. Arizona. Then we can merge unused cases into the List of United States Supreme Court cases -- Toytoy 08:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep (Modify) While it is US centric, it is a useful article on showing the growth of America in the courts, and how the courts can be used to create major changes in society. Added examples from history, like in Great Britian, Canada, or other countries, may be useful in showing that 'landmark cases' is not a US-only thing. This could help create an NPOV situation. Kit_Foxtrot 03:17, Mar 23, 2005 (EST)
To talk about stare decisis, a "landmark decision" changes the law and is binding to later cases. That's why it is influential and different from other cases. -- Toytoy 08:21, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep ~~after~~ following major reorganization. As it stands this is highly US-centric, and arguably POV. I would expand the definition at the top, rewording it be be a general discussion and add sections for other common law jurisdictions (e.g. UK, Canada, Australia, etc), with each giving a sentence or two of text relating to the specific meaning in relation to that country (e.g. in the US they're Supreme Court decisions, in the UK they're House of Lords decisions). Each section would also have a link to a list of landmark cases in that country, e.g. List of landmark cases in the United States (or United States legal precedents or United States landmark cases). I would move the list portion of this article there. This would produce something like:

Landmark cases

A landmark case is blah.

United States

In the United States, landmark cases are decisions of the Supreme Court.

main article: List of landmark cases in the United States

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, landmark cases are decisions of the House of Lords or The High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

main article: List of landmark cases in the United Kingdom

Small lists could be contained in the main article with longer ones split off as is standard practice. Thryduulf 08:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Modified article. Try this. If this article survives deletion, the list of U.S. court cases should be moved to List of United States Supreme Court cases, of course, as otherwise the article is completely unbalanced. This article should not contain lists of court cases, but should discuss the concept of "landmark cases" and leave the lists of actual cases to the (surprisingly many) "list of cases of X" articles and categories. Weak keep. Uncle G 20:16, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
- That was exactly the sort of change I had in mind. Thank you. Thryduulf 21:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment to the above discussion:

In the U.S., there are plenty of landmark cases that are not from the Supreme Court, just as there are many (probably most) U.S. Supreme Court cases that are not landmark cases.
There are plenty of landmark cases that are no longer precedent - Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson spring to mind. They were massively important for their time, and are still studied today so students can understand the later rejection of the decisions (Scott by a Constitutional Amendment, Plessy by a later Court).
As Toytoy noted before, there are some fairly universal landmark cases in common law countries - I'm sure torts students all around the world contrast Palsgraf, decided in New York, with the Wagon Mound cases out of Australia, and every contracts course covers the British case of Hadley v. Baxendale.

I'd say there should be a category for universal landmark cases, and one for those specific to each country that has a common law system, and perhaps one for the EU, which has a common court that has come down with some remarkable things. --BD2412 00:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think landmark cases need not to be "right" it only needs to change the law's direction. Roe v. Wade is not 100% right. At least pro-lifers hate it. Anyway, that case changed lots of things. Plessy v, Ferguson is absolutely important even until today. But that case changed nearly nothing. The "separate but equal" doctrine did not change the law, it upheld the fact. If I were a former slave-owner at that time, I'll be happy. That case is important but hardly a landmark. If the U.S. Supreme Court says the Earth is flat today, that decision is surely a landmark. A landmark decision does not need to be "right". It only needs to make a huge difference in the law. Dumb v. Dumber: 1+1=3; Moe v. Curly v. Larry: George W. Bush is a lizard alien; Monty v. Python: Spam! Spam! Spam! These decisions will be landmark decisions. God, let me take over Rehnquist's job! -- Toytoy 03:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Another example:

Eldred v. Ashcroft: The 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act is constitutional. -> This is not ground-breaking. I don't think anyone will call it a landmark decision. But how about ...
- RIAA v. MPAA: Copyright shall last forever.
- Copycat v. Constitution: Copyright is illegal.

Both cases change the law. The former: forever v. limited period of time; the latter: not at all v. limited protection. I think the former can hardly be a landmark case because today's copyright is already nearly forever. -- Toytoy 04:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

After the rewrites, I'm on the verge of changing my mind, but please change it to "landmark decision" instead of "landmark case"—it's the court decision within a case that changes the law—"case" just refers to the legal conflict as a whole. Plus the Black's definition is for a "landmark decision". Postdlf 06:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A landmark decision must be an outstanding decision. A boring case (no sex, no violence, no busty husband-killing defendants) may lead to a jaw-dropping decision and vice versa. I am not sure, but the original 17th century French causes célèbres could have been some juicy and spicy tabloid-style cases. I also prefer "landmark decision". -- Toytoy 09:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as rewritten, provided that significant restraint is used in deciding which cases to list. Postdlf 20:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A side note: "case law"

IMHO, the term "case law" is fatally inprecise. We are talking about issues and decisions (IRAC sans R & A). You may cite a case for your own case. But you're not citing the whole case. You only cite the issue that's relevant to your case (actually, a decision that's most friendly to you). Anyway I am not going to change this term. -- Toytoy 09:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think that discussions of what cases are landmarks and what are not, and the minutiae of the article wording, better belong on Talk:Landmark decision. Here we are discussing whether the article should be deleted — in other words whether landmark decisions exist and, as a class, are encyclopedia-worthy. I think that the nominator may well have changed your mind at this point. Uncle G 11:29, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
It is the proper term, however. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. "caselaw. The collection of reported cases that form the body of law within a given jurisdiction. —Also written case law; case-law. —Also termed decisional law; adjudicative law; jurisprudence; organic law." "Decisional law" in Black's is just a redirect to "caselaw" (and a term I have never heard nor seen in use). It may not be a sensibly crafted term, but it is the right term. Sometimes we're just stuck with the language we have. Postdlf 17:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As expanded, it looks keepworthy.DS 14:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)#
Keep all landmark cases and this article. Kappa 21:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 20:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ty dakota

Delete or redirect to Club Universe, which already has all of the content. Otherwise non-notable. --Idont Havaname 02:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 19:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Iskander

obvious vanity. Delete. ugen 64 02:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. Lacrimosus 02:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete concur is vanity. Fawcett5 03:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- vanity. - Longhair | Talk 06:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
delete. vanity. Avriette 23:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

A clear majority of votes (all the early votes) were to "delete". However, once someone made a suggestion to "redirect", everyone subsequent agreed. I also agree with the suggestion to redirect and am going to exercise my discretion to do so. Rossami (talk) 19:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Language overlap

Just a table of several words and the similarties bewtween several languages. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems to make no sense. Delete. Lacrimosus 03:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Hardly makes any sense, especially considering certain languages DO overlap. The list would need a good deal of several languages to approach comprehensive. An article on WHICH languages overlap would be much more productive, and may already exist. --InShaneee 04:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Makes some sense, but not encyclopedic. Looks like a list of selected cognates/false cognates in selected languages. An article that did this rather large topic any justice would be huge, and tend toward original research, anyway. android↔talk 04:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, extremely incomplete, and if it ever was completed it would probably fit better in wiktionary. DaveTheRed 04:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think I can almost see where they're going with this, and it's nowhere good. --Angr 16:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Little potential to go anywhere beyond speculation/original research. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 01:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to cognates. This is a search term which might easily be entered by someone not knowing the correct term. Denni ☯ 01:24, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Redirect to cognates. Pavel Vozenilek 17:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree; redirect. —Korath (Talk) 01:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 19:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Information Technology as a Key Resource

Essay covering information already available in wikipedia--nixie 02:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete borders on original research with a possible touch of copyvio. As said, covered elsewhere anyway. --InShaneee 04:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. DaveTheRed 04:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research/copyvio. --04:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research ≈ jossi ≈ 03:58, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 19:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blooze Music

Seems to be a neologism for a form of contemporary blues, google gives 28 hits for 'blooze music', delete as a non-notable neoligism--nixie 03:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Concur with nixie. --InShaneee 04:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree, uninformative orphan article as well. -- Infrogmation 04:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 05:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 19:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fewster

Substub, and I can't find any references to back it up. Dicdef of a neologism at best. Delete as unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I live in the Land of Mullets, and I've never heard this term. Delete as unverifiable, and probably neologism, unless some references can be scraped up. Joyous 03:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I've never heard it either, delete--nixie 04:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete; what they said. -- Infrogmation 04:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. And to think I tried to clean it up... :( Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and even if substantiated I doubt this would be worthy of its own article (so merge in that case). Radiant _* 14:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 20:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bolo Yeung gunz

Norwegian band currently recording their first EP, vanity --nixie 03:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. There's an obscure B-star named Bolo Yeung. If you delete that article, you may mention the band's name under Bolo Yeung if that band actually exists. The only Google hit I've found for "Bolo Yeung gunz" is this vote page. -- Toytoy 03:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleat

This was tagged for speedy deletion because it has been moved to wiktionary. It should not be deleted because cleats are real things and this article coudl be expanded. Kappa 03:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hard to see what useful things it could say. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Lacrimosus 03:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since it's already been transwiki'd. From the looks of it, one sentance pretty much says all there is to be said on the topic. --InShaneee 04:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, already transwikied. In fact, it should be speedied.
Weird nomination, you don't normally nominate soething you want kept. This has been tranwikied, there is not that much else to say about cleats, delete--nixie 04:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Should I just take the speedy tag off then? Kappa 04:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - No. Listing it here was the right thing to do. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - I thought that things were speedied after transwiki?--nixie 06:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - The transwikification process makes no distinction between speedy deletion and normal deletion. (There isn't such a distinction in other WikiMedia projects.) This is the source of the problem. The processes form a loop. The Wikipedia deletion process places transwikification as one possible end result of the normal deletion process. The transwikification process places a deletion request, per the source project's deletion mechanism, as the end result of transwikification. There are several ways to fix this, including making the end of the transwikification process be speedy deletion instead of normal deletion. However, thanks to the recent spate of exactly that being done, we've seen the problems that that incurs, with large numbers of articles having to be unspeedied. (It's also an abuse of the speedy deletion process. Being a dictionary definiton is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Abusing speedy deletion is not something to be encouraged.) Putting the (unencyclopaedic) articles through the normal deletion process a second time, but explicitly excluding "Transwiki" as a choice, is another option. But that's also problematic, as demonstrated by Lacrimosus above. ☺ Uncle G 11:09, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
There might be potential for expansion here. Weak keep. Uncle G 11:09, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Agreed - weak keep. History of cleats - different types of cleats - the many uses of cleats... Grutness|^hello? 12:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to ship construction, or something similar. Can be broken out if/when expansion is achieved. Radiant _* 12:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This could also become a disambiguation page by adding "cleat: a spike or wedge on the bottom of athletic shoes designed to increase traction" to the nautical reference. --Allen3 14:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, interesting article. Grue 18:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think this really has a great deal of potential to be encyclopedic.Jackliddle 20:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Either Delete or Merge/Redirect to ship construction, or something similar. I'm discouraged that we're evolving to the point where the only thing required for inclusion in the 'pedia is for an item to be a noun. Kevin Rector 22:41, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Some verbs and adjectives, and even particles are here, too. As long as you write more about the word than its definition. The description of the usage of a real thing in the real word (rather than in the language) is the distinction of 'onary and 'pedia. Mikkalai 23:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - No, any decent dictionary gives examples of usage. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Mikkalai 23:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Long-standing wikipedians will know that as soon as you say "nothing more can be said," someone promptly does. This article has not, for insytance, explored the 1977 CFL "Staple Gun Bowl" between Edmonton and Montreal. The term 'cleat' took on a whole new meaning after that date. Denni ☯ 01:31, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Keep, potential for expansion, especially with the related meaning cleats (athletic shoes). I've added the shoe material I know until it's necessary to break it out to its own page. Meelar (talk) 01:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's a dictionary item. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
delete. it's been transwikid. and the fact that multiple kinds of "cleats" exist is not grounds to "expand it into a wikipedia article", it's grounds to add additional definitions to the wiktionary page. i mean, duh. really. Avriette 23:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep "move to wiktionary" means critic lacks the imagination to see the potential for this article. Cleat is an old form of techology, same as ratchets and eye hooks. It's historical evolution and modern application deserves encylopedic exploration. People here need to be more sparing with the delete tag. Sniffandgrowl 00:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- User was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 02:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

The number of conditional comments makes this one very hard to count. I can say that a clear majority voted to delete this article. Several people argued that the article should be converted into a disambiguation page. Unfortunately, I could not convince myself that any of the suggested meanings were significant enough for encyclopedia articles. Disambiguation pages should be a navigational aid between articles we already have (or clearly want), not mere lists of every possible use of a name or phrase. The possible exception for significance is the John Lee Hooker song but, in that case, I believe that a redlink will be more likely to result in a quality article than a disambiguation page with no content. In any case, the current page history would be of no help to writing the desired article.

4 people clearly voted to "merge" this article (one of those discounted as a probable troll). Looking at the content of the List of Super Mario characters article, I can not convince myself that the content of this article fits or would be accepted for a merge.

I am going to exercise my discretion and call this one as a "delete". Rossami (talk) 19:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boom Boom

Delete. Another strange article from SamuraiClinton/GoofyGuy about a minor character from Super Mario Bros. 3. Not worth merging. It's also inaccurate -- there's nothing "bee-like" about Boom Boom. android↔talk 03:24, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not much more that could be said anyway, 8-bit characters didn't have a ton of personality. We don't want precident to say that every villain unique only in design and movement pattern gets their own page. Gibberish as it stands anyway. --InShaneee 04:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into List of Super Mario characters and redirect.--Matteh (talk) 04:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, gamescruft. Megan1967 05:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If anything, "Boom Boom" is the John Lee Hooker song, covered by the Animals, Springsteen, and others. -- 23 Mar 2005
Merge any non-erroneous content to List of Super Mario characters or delete, no redirect in either case. The title should be saved for the JLH song, or made into a disamig if some Boom Boom more significant than a minor vid-game character gets an article made. Barno 15:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We could keep this. Because Boom Boom is a character you have to beat unless you bypass him with a whistle when you play SMB3. --TheSamurai 22:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak argument for disambig... "Boom Boom" is also a (terminally minor) character in the Marvel comic series (in particular Secret Wars II). One could also make argument for a redirect to the Swedish chef. But this is a disambig between several very minor concepts, so I'm not convinved this is a good idea. Radiant _* 10:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with List of Super Mario characters, plus he was ridiculously easy to beat. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:34, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the article some; will anyone still have any opposition? --TheSamurai 03:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I lean towards a disambig because the song is fairly notable, no? ~~ Shiri 19:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguate. -Sean Curtin 01:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Either delete or redirect to Basil Brush. Grutness|^hello? 04:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Announcement: a new vote-casting page for Wikipedia has been made. If anybody makes requests to disambiguate or something like that, click here from now on. --TheSamurai 19:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nonnotable gamecruft. If it's important enough to mention the article about the game itself will mention it, it does not need its own. And there is no such thing as a vote for disambiguation, you can't just suddenly make your own policy up out of thin air to try to protect an article up for deletion. DreamGuy 23:28, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
merge with List of Super Mario characters. Yuckfoo 02:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.

09:41, 22 Mar 2005 MacGyverMagic deleted Nino Mark M. Sablan ('content was: Nino Mark M. Sablan shall rule the world, starting with Hollywood. Await impatient non-believers!!!')

--Death phoenix 14:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nino Mark M. Sablan

Typical vanity page. inkling 03:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete is actually where this should be. Patent nonsense, no content, vanity. --InShaneee 03:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Megan has a gift for understatement. :) Speedy delete before he rules the world! - Lucky 6.9 05:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leslie Harpold

Blogger vanity. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete --InShaneee 03:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep >10000 google hits. Grue 18:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless notability is independently established. Gamaliel 19:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
She gets google hits because shes a blogger, her personal site has an alexa rating od 200000+, her other sites are defunct. I don't think that she meets the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, delete--nixie 22:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mikko Välimäki for blogger who gets less than 2000 hits. Grue 06:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Riverbend for ridiculous bloggercruft. Grue 06:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Nixie. Radiant _* 09:02, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Nixie. DaveTheRed 23:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
delete. bloggercruft. Avriette 23:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LessonPlanLab

Someones lesson plan. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. --InShaneee 03:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a lesson plan. --172.137.123.218 04:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Edit was by me. (Cookie problems, sorry.) --Idont Havaname 04:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Certainly not an encyclopedic article. Sjakkalle 12:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Libermann

Seems to go aginst the company website, and no sources for it's claims. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable, vanity or hoax, take your pick. DaveTheRed 17:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Library research

Seems to be org research by a blogger. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete as original research, and Redirect to research. DaveTheRed 04:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete original "research" Fawcett5 04:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Linux. – AB CD 19:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linux magazines

A list of mags having to do with Linux, none of which have articles, but all have weblinks, modified link farm. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, wikipedia is not a web directory--nixie 04:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge missing magazine names into List_of_United_States_magazines#Technology_Magazines. Delete the external links; they can be recovered when articles are built. — RJH 17:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to List of United States magazines. Megan1967 06:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As the original author of the page I think I will comment on this subject. I oppose deletion, since the claim that none of the magazines have pages in Wikipedia is false. There is a page for Linux Journal and Linux Format but the links were typoed, and hence it looked as if there was no such page. I am not a US citizen, so merging with the List_of_United_States_magazines would be wrong, since some of the magazines listed are not printed in the US but you can still subscribe to them anywhere in the world. The reason why I started that page was because I was looking for what Linux Magazine to subscribe to but couldn't find any list of what magazines exist and what the magazines focus on. (anon edit from 193.64.14.2)
- Point taken. I'm changing my vote to Merge to Linux, given that not all of the magazines are from the US. Megan1967 07:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. If this is actually useful information, merge it into Linux; otherwise delete. DS 14:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

merge, as above. Avriette 00:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Original author here again :) I was bold and merged it with Linux. The Linux magazines-page now redirects to that page. (193.64.14.2 08:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC))

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.

09:45, 22 Mar 2005 MacGyverMagic deleted David Parfitt (He has led to the destruction of all religion as being false barriers to true enlightenment. He is also accredited as being the destructor of the capitalist constitution of the United States of America and replacing it with the communist Communist States)

--Death phoenix 14:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: Uncle G created an article about the award-winning movie producer to replace the previous patent nonsense. --Death phoenix 18:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David Parfitt

I stumbled across this with the "Random page" link. The page seems to be a vanity article. It talks of a person as being the destroyer of the American constitution, destroyer of religion, and creator of the Communist States of America. Utter nonsense. I think it should be deleted. 24.76.141.132 04:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could be speedy deleted as nonsense --nixie 04:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity nonsense. Megan1967 05:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The David Parfitt described here doesn't exist. Delete unless rewritten to be about David Parfitt the award-winning film producer. Uncle G 06:30, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Speedied nonsense, to make place for article suggested by Uncle G. Good catch, Mr. Anon. Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brett Davies

Lawyers are not inheriently notable, delete --nixie 04:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. not notable, likely vanity. DaveTheRed 05:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Given the strong match between this and the autobiography at Law Central Co., I agree. Delete. Uncle G 06:50, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 03:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity.Fawcett5 04:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair | Talk 06:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 17:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 23:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chris Pendleton

Vanity page, not notable per my google searches, although I don't know what good wrestling pages to check, I might be missing something.Gmaxwell 04:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is no way a vanity page. The 2005 Division I NCAA Wrestling championships just completed and I made stubs for all the champions. The Division I championships are one of the pinnacles of amateur wrestling in the US, only topped in notoriety by the Olympics. Over 90,000 people attended the 6 collegiate sessions in St. Louis, and this was the 75th anniversity of the NCAA championships. Links about the recent NCAAs, all of which mentioning Pendleton's title:

If you need more sites/links, I'd be glad to provide them. Gantry 05:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I looked up a few of those links and tried posting them here before you, but apparently you beat me to it, so i lost what i had typed. Basically, i say that this artical stays. Not everything piece information/fact about people on this site is from online. If you can't find it on google, it doesn't mean that this should not be a page. He won NCAA D1 championships this year for his weight class, he has a right to be here. Gantry posted some good links for him. Here is a bio on him. --ZeWrestler 5:43 22 March 2005
keep Kappa 05:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge NCAA wrestling champs into one article, perhaps 2005 NCAA Division I wrestling champions. If the individual subjects achieve notability outside of this context, individual articles can be spun off for them. android↔talk 14:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Android, merge. Radiant_* 14:55, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think a merge should be done. I think each one has had achievements of their own notabability already. Just the information about this notability needs to be found and written about. That is why their artical is a stub. --ZeWrestler 15:24 March 2005
Merge as suggested by Android. Break out to individual articles only where individual has "notabability" established beyond "one year's champion in his weight class". Barno 15:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and break out when more than a sentence or two of non-filler-material can be written about him. —Korath (Talk) 16:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge as suggested above. Megan1967 06:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE

Illidan Nightshade

It appears to be a hoax to me. Research turns up nothing, but I'll let the text speak for itself. Gmaxwell 05:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I've heard of Nightshade, and I'm quite sure he was in fact NOT alive during the 17th century, but was created by a classroom somewhere in New Jersey as some sort of fictional author. Though it already says something about the suspected hoax. I think this should stay open. keep Anyway, no one's requested the Lemony Snickett page for closing- and it's a known fact that there's no LS. Philnum9 23:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Think you can dig up a cite for that? I can't find anything to use to improve the accuracy of the article. The chunk of poerty at the bottom hurts my eyes.Gmaxwell 06:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hoax. Delete. Now we have K. Excelthior Wright, another hoax, which I am going to speedy delete. Rick K 06:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Articles like this make Baby Jimbo cry. Delete -- Ferkelparade π 14:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. There's no phuquing way a 17th-century poet wrote anything about the hero "calming his inner doubts". Bearcat 15:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not a hoax, but an extremely misguided author. Delete. Illidan Nightshade is an urban legend, and I've read some of his "works", which are carefully made to look like 19th century Gothic Horror. That brings me to another thing this idiot forgot- Illidan was supposed to be 19th century, not 17th. The poem is obvious bull. Again, Delete. Swgemmy 23:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've heard of him- I've just edited this page to be more accurate and I've added more evidence that I.N. was actually a hoax and never existed. I've deleted the Epic- there's no way that was from the 19th century. Keep.
- Funny that this supposed "urban legend" gets zero Google hits. Rick K 23:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. unverifiable. Mikkalai 23:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. If it's not on google, then it cant possibly be an urban legend, because ALL urban legends are spread by the internet. Swgemmy 23:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone has evidence that it's a notable hoax. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It depends what registers it as "notable"- I mean, it's probably a big deal at some High School somewhere, but no one knows the name of the highschool. I'm changing my vote to Delete, but I am going to put in a request for an accurate article on this guy/hoax/legend. --Swgemmy
- And it will get vfd'd again as not notable and not verifiable. Some urban legend that exists at one high school is clearly not notable. Rick K 05:04,

Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting this article to include the Hoax "Epic". That poem is copyrighted (and NOT by Nightshade) and was unlawfully used. I am now removing it, for the second time, and will request legal assistance if it is renovated and put here again. --Philnum9
- Is that a legal threat? That could get you banned. Rick K 07:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Binh N. Le

Wikipedia is not a memorial--nixie 05:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Numerous soldiers died in Iraq and I don't see why Binh is any more notable than any of them. Gently delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 09:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Merge?Is there a list of American servicemembers killed in Iraq? If so, this will be a nice place for it. Zscout370 19:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, or allow the creation of thousands articles for the Iraqi soldiers killed by the U.S. -- Toytoy 03:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete with full military honors. I would provide a link or two on the Iraq War page to sites that honor the dead. Zscout370 18:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bodaggit

Faeces-cruft?. Delete--nixie 05:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A made up word with no meaning. In any case, this is the encyclopaedia, not the dictionary. A redirect to Napoleon Dynamite seems too much of a stretch. Delete. Uncle G 06:40, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Megan1967 09:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nice word, maybe I'll use it myself one day, but it's made up out of pure clibidun. --Orelstrigo 01:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete A prignoble nonswiggledimmer but not sufficiently glimmich. --Lee Hunter 14:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BuddyBuzz

Non-notable java application for cellular phones, website has an alexa rating of 3 million, so it probably isn't in wide use. Article may also be an advertisment.--nixie 05:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Ad. Pavel Vozenilek 17:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Butlers in the buff

An advertisment for a adult entertainment service in the UK, delete. --nixie 06:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 10:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Business writing

Somones how-to guids for writing business correspondence, not-encyclopedic or particularly informative, delete--nixie 06:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The very definition of original research. DaveTheRed 17:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There's a Business English book at Wikibooks for this sort of stuff. I notice that this was created at the same time that Technical Writing was created (when technical writing already existed, of course), and is pretty much word-for-word identical to it. This is a pointless fork. Delete. Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirected.

California Screamin

Incomplete listing from March 6, no vote --nixie 06:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup, wikify, remove POV, and merge with California Adventure. (Whew) -- Riffsyphon1024 06:25, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The proper name of the coaster is California Screamin'. GREAT coaster and worth an article. I'll see what I can do. - Lucky 6.9 05:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, we have an extant article. Redirect. - Lucky 6.9 05:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I've already created a California Screamin' article, with the apostrophe at the end of the name. It should just be redirected. --Evanwohrman 02:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was : speedily delete as copy of a voted-deleted article.

Cambridge independent podcast

Music podcast, 2500 listeners, non-notable, delete--nixie 06:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, station promo. Megan1967 10:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I have a strong sense of deja vu here, haven't we already done this one? Average Earthman 16:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed we have. Consensus seems to be delete on that one too. One is definitely a duplicate of the other. Kill both, since a podcast is not notable. A student radio station with a real broadcasting licence with Web stream on the side, maybe. This, no. Chris 21:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedily deleted per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cambridge podcast. Mikkalai 23:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep Liberty dollar and merge and redirect NORFED to it. —Korath (Talk) 01:38, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

NORFED and Liberty dollar

Spam, advertising, advocacy. Rick K 06:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Already exists in Liberty dollar article. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:31, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- And that other one is up for deletion too. Interesting. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, I listed that here when I found it linked from the NORFED article. Rick K 06:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - very informative 216.153.214.94 06:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Spam, advertising, advocacy, echo, echo, echo. —Korath (Talk) 16:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep and rewrite While I'd never heard of it, "NORFED" gets some 7,500 google hits, so it may have some notability in some circles; if this can be shown I don't object to an article written in a way that doesn't sound like an advertisment. Note that the phrase "Liberty dollar" is common for historic USA coins depicting a personification of Liberty on the front; if that article is kept that should at least be disambiguated. -- Infrogmation 16:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. NORFED and their Liberty Dollars are very well known internationally among the numismatic community. NPOV rewrite as necessary. --Gene_poole 22:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

from: http://www.geocities.com/erik_mccrea/links3.html

ROYAL HAWAIIAN MINT: Founded in 1974 by Bernard von NotHaus. ?Almost from the very beginning of the Mint, von NotHaus was drawn to create a new currency for Hawaii.? This initial aim was to include paper money. At its operational height, the Mint had seven different locations, with a main branch in Honolulu. In my personal communications with him, von NotHaus stated that he eventually ?did over 700 issues in 25 years as Mintmaster?. During his longstanding quest, he conducted extensive reviews of various economic models, currencies, and financial systems, interspersed with a series of pecuniary experiments. His design process, development, and research continued until 1997, culminating in ?a pet project? called the Hawaiian Sovereign Currency; this was a full-fledged proposal which was meant to exemplify a law-abiding, value-backed currency. But shortly thereafter, he devised NORFED and his blueprints ?morphed? into a new undertaking, the Liberty Dollar. Though von NotHaus retired from the Mint in 1998, this is not to say he left the numismatic scene altogether (far from it! He now heads the aforementioned NORFED, as detailed in one of my foregoing listings, in which the story picks up where this one leaves off).

Yes? And? Rick K

Sorry, forgot. merge into Liberty dillar and NPOV. If 30,000 people use Lib$ (as the webpage says), then this snake oil must be exposed. Unfortunately I cannot find it discussed as hoax. Mikkalai 16:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Liberty dollar and Redirect NORFED there. Make Liberty dollar NPOV (remove the advocacy, list other alternative currencies). -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 06:46, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

(Addendum: If NORFED is known for something other than in connection with the Liberty dollar, then I wouldn't object to keeping it and expanding it). -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 06:48, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Concur with Brhaspati (Keep dollar / Merge&redirect norfed onto that). Radiant _* 09:02, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Liberty Dollar and merge/redirect NORFED unless it is known for something else (agree with Brhaspati comments) -- Lochaber 13:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concur. Keep Liberty Dollar and merge/redirect NORFED to that article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Camp kee tov

Day camp for children, non-notable, no potential to become encyclopedic--nixie 06:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Found 795 Unique hits on Google. Not sure. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:32, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability, campcruft. Megan1967 10:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Browsing through the first few pages of Google hits, I didn't see any reason why this camp is especially noteworthy. It sounds like a popular and well-run camp, but not significant outside its community. FreplySpang 23:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page has been protected against attempts to rewrite history.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ambition (cards)

Non-notable card game invented recently. Subject of a promotional campaign by its creator, User:Mike Church, who is also User:Ludocrat, User:EventHorizon, User:160, and others. The article (at the more appropriate title Ambition (card game) has been previously deleted. Previous deletion debates for that article are at Talk:Ambition (card game)/Delete, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talk:Ambition (card game), and Talk:Ambition (card game)/December talk. If you're really interested, note also User:Isomorphic/Minions of the Church, which lists sockpuppet accounts Mike has used over the past year for promoting his game, attacking those who call him on his nonsense, and muddying the waters. Also note the Philosophy of Self-Promotion segment in this previous version of his user page. The sentence So, yeah, damn right I self-promote, and if I can find clever and intricate ways of doing it, all the better describes his behavior over the past year nicely.

Basically this should be deleted because it is non-notable and because Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, and there has been a determined effort made here to use it as such.Isomorphic 06:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of keeping board games published by a known publisher (qv band guidelines). This is so not it. Delete. Radiant _* 14:55, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WP is not for self-promotion. I know several hundred games more notable and more influential than this one. Barno 15:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Speedy delete as re-creation of previously deleted content. I'll do this soon unless there are well-informed comments here convincing me otherwise. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't willing to speedy-delete or request such, as the current content is fairly different from the old article. I do think that the history is relevant as context. Isomorphic 20:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok, just-plain Delete. Non-notable; advertising and self-promotion; and borderline speedy because very similar content was previously and properly voted for deletion. I don't want to dredge through all the old discussions—which Mike at one point attempted to delete—but I vaguely thought he had promised not to re-create this content and had vigorously attacked any suggestions that he might do so in future. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. I saw this as it was being created; Ludocrat blanked a related redirect, and so I brought it over to WP:RFD since I hate seeing 0-byte articles. Ludocrat at this point swore up and down that he wasn't Mike Church, and then turned the former redirect into a disambig page with a short, unlinked mention of this game. It's cases like this that make me look at WP:AGF and cry. Extreme delete. —Korath (Talk) 22:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Recreation of previously VfD'd article. Rick K 23:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. My reasoning is explained here and I will not give it again in great detail; you can read it at that page. This accusation that I am Mike Church, Ludocrat, etc. is just idiotic axe-grinding by users, a part of a larger politically-motivated effort by "anonymous" Internet users, several of whom who have been offline identified and some have even been connected to neo-Nazi groups. I have researched this thoroughly and verified the facts. They seek to launch a personal attack on Mr. Church based on an unfounded fear that he wrote Ambition to become politically influential; there is no indication that he has or ever had this ambition, and the concept seems ludicrous; how would a card game lend a person political clout? Mike Church would have to be a seriously deluded individual to make such a misplaced effort, but it seems more likely that his attackers merely wish to paint him with these sinister motives. The politically-motivated attack surrounding Ambition, however, will not cease and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. This represents cause to delete Ambition (cards). EventHorizon talk 06:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The claims about the "non-notability" of the game should be ignored: an article on it (written by Mike Church) was published in the March, 2005 issue of The Games Journal [2], and Ambition has been a matter of discussion on both Finnish and Japanese blogs. [3] Finally, there's an entry on it at the BoardGameGeek. [4]. I don't think this is enough to make the article worth the liability of potentially ugly political warfare, but all the claims to the game's notability are verified. So while I support deleting the article on practical grounds, the game itself is definitely notable and growing. EventHorizon talk 06:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Right. Because we all know that neo-Nazis are really interested in making sure that non-notable card games don't get publicized. RickK 06:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    - It's not all the people voting to delete the article(s) who have been connected to these groups, but many of the people making the "sock puppet" accusations. I should have made that more clear: not everyone voting to delete the article is a participant in the politically-motivated personal attack on this individual. EventHorizon talk 06:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - There is only one allegation of sockpuppetry in this thread, and lots of delete votes without personal attacks. That would suggest that it is not a personal attack, but that people simply consider the game not encyclopedic. There are lots'n'lots of relatively unknown game authors, and very few are on par with Cwali or Cheapass Games. Radiant _* 09:08, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain, but the article itself is pretty harmless. I've never heard of Ambition, but I've gone to EventHorizon's links and a game of similar notability would probably be kept. I don't know the personal history here, though. Avigna Pines 21:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 03:04, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete yet still again as vanity/original research. Mike, give up! Denni ☯ 01:41, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Delete. Never question the judgment of Isomorphic. Gorgonis 02:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 03:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  - Thank you Korath, but it was already obvious that he was an Isomorphic sockpuppet.
    - As if I really need sockpuppets when I have so many neo-Nazis on my payroll. Isomorphic 21:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another suggestion: Let's ban all mention of Ambition from Wikipedia for all eternity; delete the article and no user may write on the topic at all. Let's make it the first topic to be banned from Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects. Next, let's make a rule that no user can play Ambition and contribute to Wikipedia at the same time. Either you are with us, or you are with the Wiki-terrorists (Ambition players). Finally, let's discourage young children from playing Ambition because it's the next tobacco, because it encourages truancy, liberal politics, and sodomy! Let's get Bush to declare war on Ambition. GrEaT IdEaS!!!!1111 Roni C Mani 02:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 03:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Delete (...and ban people who recreate it (mostly kidding)). -- Cyrius|✎ 07:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Fully concur with Roni C Mani, with the proviso that the policy can always be changed should Ambition a) become notable and b) be demonstrated not to be injurious to the morals of minors. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Déjá Vu. C'est vrai!-JCarriker 10:49, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete again. -Sean Curtin 01:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ✏ OvenFresh ² 19:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Non-famous but notable niche game. 68.115.113.171 03:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Worse entries have been let in. "Non-notable" is the most subjective and overused reason for delete. I propose that anybody who uses 'non-notable' as a reason must pair it with verification. This entry passes the verification test in my opinion. Sniffandgrowl 03:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- User was created today; he has only four edits not to vfds, two of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 04:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chreaster

Neologism, 64 google hits, delete--nixie 07:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 10:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, term not in even remotely widespead use. - TB 11:37, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Delete, what they said. -- Infrogmation 16:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
awwwwww. seasonable neologism nonsense. how cute. delete. Avriette 00:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Harvey

Vanity page - non-notable. Should be deleted. - Marcika 10:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable found about 30 pages via google and they were nearly all friends of Ryan's.Tjc 10:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Urm - an anarchist folk-singer who began (will begin) promoting his own music in "fall 2005". Delete, possible BJAODN. - TB 11:36, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 06:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep* not mainstream, but certainly notable within the radical community.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep since there was no clear consensus (6 keep and 5 delete). Sjakkalle 08:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cowsay

A programme that draws ASCII cows by a troll who has a penchant for page move vandalism of user pages... Dunc|☺ 10:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's real and (to my surprise) passes the google test. Not very useful, but marginally encyclopaedic. Weak keep - TB 11:31, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Can't say I like it but I trust TB's judgement on this one. Weak keep. Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic. Just another barely-cute-enough-for-junior-high-school ASCII-art program. No, I won't call it "bovinecruft". WP is not a web directory or software guide. Editor's history of vandalism is irrelevant to the article's worthiness, but it raises suspicion that this article would be likely to be vandalized in the future. Barno 15:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We don't need this when actual, notable ascii art programs like JavE don't have articles. (Though, I'm not convinced we need one for that, either.) —Korath (Talk) 16:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge with other pages of thinking cows, defecating internet bears etc. Kappa 19:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Barno and/or Korath. Radiant _* 09:02, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ASCIIcruft. ComCat 05:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
strong keep. this program has been around for a long time, and is in wide use. i have seen entire software projects written with comments in cowsay-bubbles. strong, strong, keep. it is notable software. Avriette 00:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have fleshed the article out substantially. I am frankly shocked the article didn't exist in the first place. Avriette 00:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep --SPUI (talk) 00:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 07:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:48, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Red Lake High School

Another non-notable high school. Don't be fooled. Just because some kid killed some people dosen't make the school notable. Otherwise any kid could come and commit a crime to get their school in the encyclopedia. School deletionist 11:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: The article focus has changed dramatically since this nomination was made - please see the current vote at Talk:Red Lake High School massacre to decide the existence and content of the three articles.

While I'm not necessarily in favor of school articles, this nomination seems to be in bad faith because of the tone and the username. The nominator may well be a sockpuppet given his lack of any other edits. Abstain. Radiant _* 11:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Saopaulo1 11:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly a bad faith nomination. I think the incident should have its own article, tho. --Conti|✉ 11:43, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course, this is news Wouter Lievens 11:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to wikinews and come back when we can be sure it is in fact notable. Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Ahem! Wikinews had Wikinews:Ten dead on Minnesota Indian reservation after school shooting several hours before Wikipedia had Red Lake High School massacre and only a handful of hours after the creation of this article. Uncle G 19:01, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Concur with MacGyver. Wikinews. Also the article's name is wrong, as the content is about the shooting. Radiant _* 12:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think it should have it's own article, it is a location very much like Columbine which got it's own article, and people should be reminded what happened at Red Lake Foxcek 12:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Redirect, but I think redirecting would be a better solution; maybe to something like 2005 Red Lake shooting. -Frazzydee|✍ 12:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - major news item that is encyclopedic. The naming is not the issue here and should be covered on the talk page under the guidance of WP:RM, as is happening currently. violet/riga (t) 12:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - This VFD is trolling. --mav 13:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - This is news. The title should be Red Lake High School Shooting. I'm sure the general public will refer to it that way after the media has a field day with this story. -Wjbean 13:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's a school. Wincoote 13:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Er, Wincoote, you should read the article before voting. It's not about a school, it's about a shooting incident. Radiant_* 14:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - Red Lake High School is a school, but the article hasn't been rounded out yet. Wincoote
Keep. Seems reasonable to test whether the article belongs by listing it on VfD, but this school does belong. The shooting has rendered it notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- What makes it "reasonable to test whether the article belongs by listing it on VfD"? --GRider\^talk 18:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Moves and/or creation of redirects may well be appropriate and can be done by anyone at any time; moves should probably be discussed first in Talk:Red Lake High School. Thank goodness, school shooting incidents like this are currently rare enough to be notable. I hope I will not see a day when people are saying "just a school massacre like thousands of others." I have to wonder whether the nominator, who has a brand new account, is a sockpuppet of some experienced Wikipedian who is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete because now there is a separate article, Red Lake High School massacre, about the shooting. The article under consideration here (which for some reason doesn't have a VFD message at the top) is just about the school, which is not in and of itself notable. --Angr 17:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable because of the shooting. Note that Wikipedia has articles for both Columbine High School and Columbine High School massacre. DaveTheRed 17:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This school has become notable due to the shooting similar to Columbine. I am sure that more can be said especially given that most of the students are from the Chippawa tribe. By the way, the vfd notice isn't on the page. Capitalistroadster 17:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge shooting content into Red Lake High School massacre and school info into Red Lake, Minnesota and redirect to the newly created Red Lake High School massacre. The shooting did not occur because of the school as far as I can tell, and is not notable in and of itself. People don't try to argue that every convenience store shooting requires the store to have its own article and I don't see why this should change for schools. - Banyan Tree 17:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The school is not notable in its own to have its own article. Merge into Red Lake High School massacre and redirect -- Jwinters | Talk 18:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- To further my point, look at the history of the Red Lake High School page. The page did not even exist before the shootings.
  - If Wikipedia had existed in the 1990's, do you think Columbine High School would've had an article before April 1999? Saopaulo1 21:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not just because of the shooting, but because high schools are significant enough to merit their own articles. - Seth Ilys 18:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. Keep or redirect to Red Lake High School massacre. --Edcolins 18:41, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 19:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep High schools and notable shooting incidents. Kappa 19:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --EisenKnoechel 21:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I created this page when the first headlines came on CNN and before the extent of the shooting was known and it had been dubbed a massacre. But merge massacre content to it's own article. School's that has been the scene of this kind of event are indeed notable. Just a little sad that the massacre page history won't reflect how fast we had a article on the subject.. But that's just me being a glory hog Preisler 21:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All public institutions are notable. I suspect this is probably a vexatious nomination to prove a point, and as such it's invalid anyway.--Gene_poole 22:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Most school articles are non notable and should be deleted, but this is obviously not one of them. Rick K 22:32, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If we delete Red Lake High School we, as wikipedian, should eliminate Columbine High School article, because in both High Schools it happened a practically same event. --pjv_b 19:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The terrible recent events justify this article, keep--nixie 23:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Moncrief 00:00, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep for excellent reasons stated. - Lucky 6.9 02:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This high school and Columbine High School are both not noteworthy. The Columbine High School's "famous" alumni mentioned in the article: "country songwriter/artist Skip Ewing, melancholy pop band Big Head Todd and the Monsters (all three members), and 1988 Olympic Gold Medalist Melanie Palenik" don't even have an article yet. The last paragraph "the order Columbiformes includes the 308 species of doves" is also a joke. A high school is a high school. Unless it actually becomes something such as an elite high school, it's no more than a human butcher shop. Is there an article dealing with the garage at 2122 N. Clark Street, Chicago? Certainly not. Just because some people were killed over there on February 14, 1929, does not earn that lousy garage an article in an encyclopedia. -- Toytoy 06:55, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- ~~See St. Valentine's Day Massacre for the article supposedly missing. Last edition on February 28, 2005. Pablo.cl 13:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)~~
  - No, I mean there's no article about that particular garage (just a building) in a way similar to the White House (the building) and the War of 1812 (a historical incident that damaged that building) -- Toytoy 13:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    - When I realized my mistake you already had answered. Pablo.cl 18:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Gazpacho 07:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Now the article is about the school, and only has a brief mention of the massacre. Pablo.cl 13:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The information is possibly copied from the school website. It's legal, but useless in an encyclopedia. What do you want to know about a school? Its history? Its policy? Its people? That article has nearly nothing to justify its existance. One thing that tells Harvard University from the official http://www.harvard.edu/ website is our article has some original and interesting information in it. OK, even if someone has written something about that school, how do we check the fact? How many students of that school are writing for Wikipedia? Can they write anything that's useful to an outsider? Winston Churchill was a great man. I don't think we need an article for his family. No one cares about his uncle. -- Toytoy 02:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The shooting has made it notable but it needs to be expanded. I don't think Columbine High School should be deleted either, especially because it features in Bowling for Columbine. It is far too early to delete, besides who knows maybe later in the year Michael Moore will make a movie about Red Lake. -- Lochaber 13:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo in a car. The car does not have an article. The bullet that killed him is stored as a museum exhibit in Czech Republic. It also does not have an article. Neither do the car, bullets, blood-stained shirt and other things involved in the JFK assassination have an article of their own. That high school is just a faceless high school. It does not have a story of its own. Even if it has some, we are not interested in them (other than the massacre). That school is not a place for you to visit. If we need its information (who?), we visit its website (place it as an external link in the massacre article) for the latest information. Otherwise, just another useless high school article does not enrich this encyclopedia in any way. Beslan school hostage crisis occured about six months ago, do you care about that Beslan Middle School Number One? Sorry, it's still a dead link. The Michael Moore movie is irrelevant. Several McDonald's appeared in Supersize Me, none of them deserves any article. -- Toytoy 02:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia is not paper. Moncrief 03:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia is also not an information landfill. There's an article for Suzanne Vega, a famous female singer; another for "Tom's Diner", one of her greatest songs. I don't see the need of an article for that diner (Tom's Restaurant) on the corner of Broadway and 112th Street in New York City even though that diner also appeared in Seinfeld. -- Toytoy 01:49, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, WP:POINT. Obviously nominated by a disgruntled ultra-inclusionist (probably GRider). Binadot 04:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. WP:POINT Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. James F. (talk) 00:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep School massacres are fortunately not all that common. PatGallacher 17:53, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 18:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sarge Baldy 21:10, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep way above the notability bar. ALKIVAR™ 21:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Others have noted why. --Dittaeva 21:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Concur with Radiant, nominator's choice of username and his/her [Contributions] strongly indicates the possibility of a sockpuppet at work. - Mailer Diablo 21:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the account name, edit history, and nomination editorial all suggest more than just possibility. --GRider\^talk 22:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Although an obvious sockpuppet, I'm not aware who he/she is, perhaps you would like to request assistance from a developer to investigate this? - Mailer Diablo 22:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes, if a developer would oblige, this should be investigated. --GRider\^talk 22:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 22:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
merge and redirect onto the article about the shooting. The school isn't notable for anything else, so why have two articles? Thryduulf 22:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The shootings will inevitably lead to interest in the background of the school. This article should be expanded very soon, but certainly not deleted.--LukeSurl 23:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the article on the massacre. Split back out later if needed. --Carnildo 23:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge content as background to the massacre article and redirect title there. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All public institutions belong in Wikipedia.--Gene_poole 02:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Contains interesting information - Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 02:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. School's status is now notable following the recent massacre and it deserves an article. --Andylkl ^(talk) 04:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. This Vfd is totally messed up. How can you say that a school shooting, or in this case a massacre, doesn't make a school notable? I'm sure Columbine and Santee were the same way (non-notable) before their's happened, but national news, even worldwide news changes the perception of a formerly non-notable place, especially when death is involved. (odd though, Santee doesnt have an article...)-- Riffsyphon1024 04:43, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Extreme keep for the many many reasons above. —RaD Man (talk) 08:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, obviously. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and improve. If the existence of the school is not disputed, then there is no reason that this is not a valid article topic. Notability is subjective, but schools with more than a few students should automatically pass the test. Wiki is not paper. Someone please wake me up when there is finally a policy vote about keeping school articles. ~leif ☺ _HELO 20:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Wiki is not paper not is it garbage can. Other than a murder, these schools are not noteworthy. There are articles for colleges because you may want to select a college that's best for you regardless of distance. A New Yorker who lives next to the NYU may want to go to Stanford to complete his/her education. I don't see too many people who live in Long Island and go to a high school in, maybe, Brooklyn. High schools, except for some truly great ones, are not noteworthy. -- Toytoy 01:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
delete. bring the wikinews article back and pretty it up when it's stable and ready to be a wikipedia article.
Keep. Notable like Columbine High School is notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 00:54, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete the current content.

However, I also note that there were several recommendations to redirect it to Dalek as a reasonable mispelling. There is also a disambig link already on the article to the Dahlak Archipelago. I am going to delete this to clean out the history then recreate it as a disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 06:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amendment: The page comes up with block-compress errors and can not be deleted. Reviewing the content, I can't find anything so overwhelmingly offensive that it must be deleted from the edit history. In the interest of time, I simply converted it to the disambig page. Rossami (talk) 06:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dalak

Looks like a slang expression more worthy of Wiktionary than here (if anywhere). Anyone know enough Danish to work out what it means? Grutness|^hello? 11:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Misspelling redirect to Dalek? -- Cyrius|✎ 13:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I would urge merging with Bjarne Liller article if there was enough content to make that worth while, but this isn't even an adiquate explanation. The band IMO is just within adiquate notability in international trad jazz circles, but the neologism Danish catch-phase of one of the members is not. Anyway, Dalak is also the name of a place in Afganistan, which may be more worthy of an eventual article. -- Infrogmation 16:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Dalek. Meelar (talk) 16:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Dalek. DJ Clayworth 21:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete. This is just terrible. I'm Danish and I can assure you that so few Danes have heard of this expression (if it even exists) that it probably wouldn't even deserve an article on the Danish wiki. Btw. only one Google hit, and that's a wikipedia mirror :) Preisler 22:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Dalek. Megan1967 05:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect (without merge) to Dalek; it seems like a plausible misspelling. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There's a bit of a problem with the Dalak in Afghanistan [5]. Whilst I found a hotel guide that gives its location and elevation, two on-line maps (multimap and MSN) and the Times atlas all deny its existence. (Multimap lists a Dalek and a Dalka in Afghanistan, however.) The fact that the hotel guide only listed Dalak in the Google cached version didn't help in persuading me of its existence. Uncle G 18:22, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DesktopMagik

Advertising. Inter\^Echo 14:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
+1 delete --Melaen 14:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

delete - DavidWBrooks 15:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ad. Pavel Vozenilek 18:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ShadowClipboard

Advertising for non-notable software -- Ferkelparade π 14:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete advertising CDC (talk) 23:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 5 "delete" votes and 4 "merge" or "redirect" votes. No one voted to keep as is. Despite a majority to delete, there is not the overwhelming concensus necessary. The decision defaults to keep for now. Rossami (talk) 05:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wbagnfarb

Not notable neologism. Maybe move to wiktionary? But defenitely not here Jackliddle 15:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Dave Barry, where a reference to this term already exists -- it just needs to be expanded upon (briefly). android↔talk 15:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Dave Barry. -- Infrogmation 16:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, minor joke. Martg76 16:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Y'know, Delete Minor Joke would be a good name for a rock band. DS 06:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) (oh, and I agree.)
Merge to Dave Barry. DaveTheRed 17:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Marty, neologism. Megan1967 06:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Dave Barry Bluemoose 09:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pasaman Barat

2 weeks time elapsed for translation pending Lectonar 15:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to vote; I'm all botched up because of this GRider discussion: Delete Lectonar
Delete - this is the English Wikipedia, and it has had its chance. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ditto. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ella Peterson

Non-notable. Vanity. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 17:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete seems to be vanity by a kid... delete but nicely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- That's a new one on me: "delete nicely". Maybe we should add it to the policy... Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 18:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete nicely. Gotta agree with starblind.. It's too cute not to be deleted nicely. Preisler 23:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Bend over a rail and delete roughly from behind, because I hate cuteness and this is a textbook example of What Wikipedia Is Not. (But don't treat the vanity author kid that way.) Barno 16:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, the humanity! Delete with a gentle touch, tempered by mercy, kindness, teddy bears, smiley emoticons, and little hearts. And a big warm fuzzy hug for Barno. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, not notable. OK, I'm writing this in my green ink, but what Unicode character can I use to put little circles instead of dots over the i's? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is different from any of the other countless vanity pages. Delete in a very normal fashion. — JIP | Talk 19:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's different because she seems to be only ten years old or so, and thus can't really be expected to know better. That said, delete. DS 14:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fuckula

An amusing definition, worthy of BJAODN, but the word doesn't actually exist and this is in any case a dictionary entry not an encyclopaedia entry. Beware when searching that a lot of the obvious pornography puns on "Count Dracula" will be returned in the search results. Uncle G 17:38, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Hehe. Delete, but definitely BJAODN material -- Ferkelparade π 19:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If anyone from western Canada can confirm this, merge into Canadian slang. Otherwise, sadly, delete. Kevintoronto 23:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete and/or BJAODN. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN - this belongs in that treasure trove that future internet archaeologists will plum to learn what people thought was funny in the dawning decades of the internet. --BD2412 00:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This western Canadian has never heard of the term, and moreover, questions the functionality of the laugh glands of those who want this to go to BJAODN. Delete Denni☯ 01:49, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
- The B in BJAODN stands for "bad", so joke doesn't actually have to be funny to go on there. Bearcat 04:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Spinboy 03:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Even if this were real (and I sincerely doubt that it is), it'd belong at Wiktionary, not here. Delete/BJAODN/don't transwiki unless confirmed. Bearcat 04:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Megan1967 07:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, though it is about the only example I can think of in which a portmanteau word incorporates another portmanteau word ("Chocula" being a combination of "chocolate" and "Dracula"). Then again, if it does exist, I suspect it's actually a portmaneau word of fuck and Dracula. -R. fiend 06:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN, but it might make the Wiktictionary people lift an eyebrow if we transwikied it as well...

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:55, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mikko Välimäki

Vanity/non-notable/bloggercruft. 1800 Google hits. Delete. Grue 18:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. EFF Finland is a very notable organisation and if Välimäki is its co-founder, then he's also notable. There is more to him than just his blog, you know. — JIP | Talk 19:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If something is notable, it's creator is not always notable enough to survive VfD (see there and there, off the top of my head). Besides, if EFF is so notable, where is the article about it? Grue 19:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Of your two examples, the first (Jick was deleted only because the claim that they created something notable came to late to survive a mountain of delete votes. The second one survived. Kappa 03:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - The second one got merged to one of the two notable things he did. Why should this article stand on its own? The most notable thing about him (he is not current chairman) is that his hobbies are running and forgot-what-else. Grue 05:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - The second one was "boldly" merged, not by consensus. I don't care very much if this article stands on its own or not, but it seems more convenient to have it separate. Kappa 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Is Electronic Frontier Finland related in any way to the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Or do they just share similar names? android↔talk 19:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - AFAIK Electronic Frontier Finland is a sub-organisation of Electronic Frontier Foundation. — JIP | Talk 05:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - If that's the case, I vote to Keep. android↔talk 05:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      - Why? Because he was a former chairman of sub-organisation of some organisation? Grue 05:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        IMO, it's been established that the three criteria you used for nomination don't apply. Doesn't appear to be vanity; notable enough in Finland and in the OSS community as the founder of an EFF branch; notable outside of just having a blog. By the way, your Google test is off; you didn't search for "Mikko Välimäki", did you? That's an additional 1,190 hits. android↔talk 06:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
        That's because Google Toolbar converts "ä" to "a", sorry for disinformation. Grue 06:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep creators of notable things Kappa 19:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge creators of famous projects onto that said projects, just like parents of famous people are generally merged onto said people. Radiant _* 09:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Does not meet the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, merge back to the relevant project--nixie 09:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, he is heard and seen in Finnish media quite often, i think that makes him notable enough. bbx 01:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing notable here. At best deserves a one sentence mention in a single section of Electronic Frontier Foundation. Gamaliel 02:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki process completed. Rossami (talk) 05:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa Orders: Directive 21

Original source text moved to http://wikisource.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrer_Directive_21. 119 19:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Make sure history is moved as well and delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Donnie May

Non-notable entry; we cannot possibly maintain a biography on every eighth-grade algebra teacher in existence. - jredmond 20:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable or vanity... --Neigel von Teighen 20:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't clear 'average professor' bar. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, user's other contributions have been similarly unnotable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unparalleled

Despite my lack of knowledge of rap music, given the seeming lack of a recording contract and the presence of an example image in the article I suspect this band are not notable. DJ Clayworth 21:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity CDC (talk) 04:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no album + no major tour = not notable, user:68.63.37.64 only edits make this possibly vanity. Megan1967 05:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, see e.g. this link on Gbooks which shows that Shuker's book does make the reference. This term (which we've all heard anyway, but of course this doesn't cut it WP-wise) is a popular music term referenced in a scholarly work on popular music. Thus it easily satisfies WP:V and WP:N, and I'm sure many more sources can be found with more work (by, perhaps, the "keep" commenters below?). Also, can I take the opportunity to point out that Google Books is extremely strong? --- Deville (Talk) 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenybopper

Teenybopper was nominated for deletion on 2005-03-22. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenybopper/2005-04-03.

Teenybopper was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-26. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenybopper music.

Wikipedia has grown since this article was last the subject of an AfD, and I believe this article, especially in the tone in which it is written, has no place on Wikipedia. Mitch 07:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the previous concensus was delete, but the article was not deleted. Sorry for what appears to be a double post, but this is the second time this has gone through an AfD, and I don't know how to prevent that. Mitch 07:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blend of dicdef/POV. Most people dress the same way and express similar opinions as people around them. --Thorsten1 09:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a redirect on this one. Not sure where though... RN 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Poorly written isn't important here, but may be of interest to Cleanup. Could use better quality sources, but that's generally part of cleanup WilyD 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, not to nitpick, but this article isn't sourced at all.--Isotope23 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does list Shuker as a source. WilyD 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment, OK... but who/what is "Shuker" and when/where in 1988 did he make the statement attributed to him in this article? Maybe this is just a case of very lousy sourcing and citation... but personally I don's see a (sur?)name and a year as sourcing. It needs to be tied to an external source, or at least Wiki-linked so any other reader could figure out who made this statement, when, and in what context.--Isotope23 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment nevermind... see below.--Isotope23 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... but gives no clue as to who that is. For all that we know, that could be simply a friend of the editor who wrote that (Clarehodder (talk · contribs)). (It's probably Roy Shuker, but the point stands: This isn't helpful to readers who don't already know of Roy Shuker.) Uncle G 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a standard citation style. While I'd never let a good article or featured article get away with it, it does cut the mustard at AfD, as far as I can tell. WilyD 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This is quibbling at this point, but it's only standard when you have a bibliography at some point in your work... regardless, I made the sourcing clear. That should take care of some of the WP:V problems.--Isotope23 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, the sourcing is definitely much better now. WilyD 20:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No. As Isotope23 points out it is not a citation. It's just a pointer to the actual citation, which in that style is located in a bibliography (or, in Wikipedia parlance, "References") section. See Wikipedia:Harvard referencing for how this works. To cut the mustard at AFD the source must be locatable. "Shuker (1998)" really provides no information to someone who doesn't already know what the source is, because it's just a pointer to the actual citation, rather than the actual citation itself. It's only enough to locate the citation itself, not enough to locate what is actually being cited. The actual citation, giving the name of the author, title of the work, publisher, and so forth, was never added to the article. Uncle G 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No, what is it is Poorly Written including the citation - and Poorly Written isn't a criterion for deletion. WilyD 11:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think anyone is arguing deletion based on sourcing anymore, but a "citation" that doesn't actually tell you the source is more than "poorly written"... it's unverified. It's a moot point now, but I'd argue to delete any article that tried to pass that off as sourcing or verification.--Isotope23 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tenative Delete This is one of those "I know it exists, but it is not WP:V. I imagine it could be WP:V sourced, but an precursory look turned up no reliable sources... and since it has been tagged since May 6th, 2006 I think 4 months is enough of a reprieve. If sourced by the end of the AfD then it should be kept, but if not WP:V sourced by the end of the AfD, it should be deleted.--Isotope23 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment struck above. I found a source for this that was a bit more appropriate than a last name and a random date & added it along with a biliography. I've added cite tags to everything else that was not sourced. No opinion, though all unsourced stuff should be pulled.--Isotope23 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Granted, cleanup and some better writing could be used but that's not a reason to me to delete it. If we delete this then why not delete valley girl or sections of, if not the entire, goth article? Dismas|^(talk) 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hand to maintenance. It's a valid cultural concept (subset of adolescence), especially as it's largely obsolete/historical. Needs better and more sources, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The term is notable for sure, but it might be hard to maintain an encyclopedia article about it. Danny Lilithborne 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as
Keep The article is sourced and notable. Needs cleanup though.
Delete There seems to be nothing here that could not be covered in Youth culture or Youth subculture, or even Adolescence.Jlittlet 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a dictionary plus some dates and cultural comment.-Kmaguir1 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By dictionary plus some commentary do you mean Encyclopaedia article? WilyD 04:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand. Highly noted term. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and {{sofixit}}. Highly noted term with 312,000 search results on Google. RFerreira 20:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am aware of numerous times I have read and heard the term and am sure with time and effort the subject will expand and be a valuable addition here.--Bhires 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to British banknotes. —Korath (Talk) 01:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Pound

Effectively "patent nonsense" - no such currency exists. This article was created by Seabhcan when he was under the impression that Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes represent separate currencies tied to the Pound sterling at a 1:1 rate, when in fact S & NI notes are merely sterling banknotes issued by local banks and they are already properly documented in the British banknotes article. The Northern Ireland Pound article is simply a copy of the relevant section from British banknotes. Seabhcan now accepts that he was in error (see User_talk:Seabhcan#Pounds). I have salvaged the Pound Scots article because that refers to the pre-1707 currency of Scotland (when £1 English = £12 Scots), but I strongly believe that Northern Ireland Pound should be deleted because no currency of that name has ever existed. -- Arwel 21:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to British banknotes. Rick K 23:15, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to avoid future occurrences of someone making a similar mistake. Qwghlm 13:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to unicorns --Christofurio 21:21, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect back to the parent article. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of cult

There is already an article that the discusses in-depth the definition of the term cult. Merge any useful text with Cult and Delete .--Zappaz 21:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment. ~~You forgot to say which article it is that it should be merged to.~~ --cesarb 05:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now it's better. --cesarb 21:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge, delete if legal. Gazpacho 07:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge to cult. -Willmcw 00:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, merge content if you're interested. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge (if possible) and redirect. -Sean Curtin 02:02, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Cult does not do a perfect job separating out and clarifying the different usages of the word but this is even less perfect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete No one will search info under this name. Pavel Vozenilek 18:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
delete. I don't really feel a merge here is necessary or possible. First, looking at Cult shows you that there is a lot of "factual accuracy disputed", and in general, that article doesn't need the chaos that the Definitions of cult article would add to it. If the original author, Ed Poor, or one of its subsequent authors would like to attempt to update the cult page (how could they not know about Cult going into writing that article anyways?), I think that would be the most appropriate strategy. But it's a hand grenade wrapped in a claymore kind of merge. Avriette 00:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useful to Cult. Megan1967 07:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.

I count 5 clear "delete" votes and 3 "keep" votes. However, one of the keep votes is discounted as anonymous (and based on contribution history, there is a reasonable probability that the edit was made as a sockpuppet). Another "keep" vote was made by an editor with a very short contribution history prior to this vote. Since the Local politicians discussion did not achieve concensus, we are left to decide these cases individually. Based on the stated votes and my own understanding of the criteria for inclusion of biographies, I am going to call this particular one as a delete. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lih Young

Non-notable office seeker. Article noted that she gets less than 6% of the vote in races for minor offices in the state of Maryland]. Gamaliel 21:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete political hopefuls unless they otherwise meet the criteria for biography--nixie 23:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete minor-party statewide office seekers unless otherwise notable. If she had had a legitimate chance of winning, my vote would change. Meelar (talk) 01:54, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep---BrenDJ 02:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Even though her turnout is not very great, at least she had run under an affiliated party for high positions such as a senator or representative.--J.A.S. 02:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keepwhy delete it?--67.85.57.123 18:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of really really stupid article ideas that you should not create

List is arbitrary, hard to define, and could be insulting to newbies --Silas Snider (talk) 22:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete or restore to this version. --SPUI (talk) 22:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You know, I don't think this is such a bad idea (except for the title). I do seem to recall reading something similar in a FAQ somewhere, but the Wikipedia namespace tends to be rather convoluted. A n00b faq would be useful imho (but it should be relatively short since people tend not to actually read faqs ). Keep but rename. And delete some junk from it, such as the link to Millionth Article (since it's pretty empty, and n00bs wouldn't know that in the first place). Radiant _* 22:34, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup and retitle. Link to it at the bottom of each new edit page (where it now says don't create an article to promote yourself, etc.) --Angr 22:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Might have a use, but it needs a hell of a lot of cleaning up - I just tried and failed to get a nice version from the history, but even once you get past SPUI's edits it's difficult. Deleting would at least get rid of the problem, I suppose. ANd I'm sure there's pages elsewhere that say the same thing more friendlily. sjorford →•← 23:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's in the humour section. Newbies aren't going to see it unless they visit the humour section. Complaining about it being "arbitary, hard to define" is hilarious. Wincoote 23:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Wincoote and because it tickles my funny bone.. Preisler 00:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Um...not all of these are even agreed upon (e.g. high schools or pop songs). Could easily be construed as a slap at individual editors. Delete. Meelar (talk) 01:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's hardly insulting to give people an idea of what not to do. Gamaliel 02:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I commented the previous time this came up for VfD: "... including this one." Weak delete or at least retitle. The fact that the article is categorized in the humor category will be missed by most readers; it appears to be just another policy-related article in the Wikipedia: namespace. As Meelar noted, not all editors and not all admins agree about policy on some of these points. Not funny enough for BJAODN, not quite appropriately written for Wikipedia: policy namespace. Barno 16:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. Lacrimosus 23:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Both the tone of the article and the name itself are too insulting to be kept. Agree with Barno that many will not notice that it is in the humor section. DaveTheRed 23:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, possibly retitle or rephrase the intro. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and make it more serious. Saopaulo1 07:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep the gist of it in some form, somewhere; it's actually quite good advice. -R. fiend 02:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, though the basic idea is sound, and useful ideas from this should be incorporated into other, more "legitimate" policy and quasi-policy pages. -Sean Curtin 02:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 18:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand judiciously. Link to Danube class starship while you're at it. Avriette 01:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, noting that a sense of humor is a helpful thing, and that VFD has no jurisdiction over the Wikipedia namespace. — Dan | Talk 03:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've just added a box to make the humorous nature of the page explicit upon first viewing, and, in addition, have created a serious version of the article at Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. (As a side note, if this article survives VfD, I'm probably going to rename the article "List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create" (note the extra 'really's) to make the fact that the article is supposed to be humorous even more explicit.) Does anybody have any objections? Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, hehehehe, is this intended for use on april 1? :-) Kim Bruning 10:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's just some tongue-in-cheek venting by us vicious evil deletionists. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I laughed. Others will too. —Mar ka ci 2005-03-28 T 22:32 Z
Keep - there's now a legit version of the same, and this has comedy value. -- Kizor 09:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Is a good thing. --Haggis 09:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Move to Meta with its friend WP:DICK. Snowspinner 17:13, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand and clean up. --Frenchman113 13:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Inflamatory. --InShaneee 20:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Audioscope

Article is about a minor music festival, advertising and or self-promotion, delete--nixie 22:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete: It's nothing. -- MessedRocker 23:36, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - speedy delete! ≈ jossi ≈ 03:59, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Pavel Vozenilek 18:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not Notable Dsmdgold 22:40, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

The article was substantially changed very late in the discussion process. Taking into consideration the specific objections, the change made and the (few) changes of votes by the voters who did return to the discussion, I am going to call this one as a "keep as redirect". Rossami (talk) 05:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historiophoty

~~del~~. (vote changed after recent change.) Neologism. A handful of google links, vast majority of which refer to the ~~book~~ article by Hayden White which introduces the word. Not to say that the article itself is of dubious correctness (the historiography phrase). Mikkalai 22:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. The phrase in the article is a direct passage taken from Hayden White, it is very correct. Even if Hayden White were to invent the word, why would it not deserve an article? Hayden White is a leader in the field of Historiography and a highly notable author. There are 192 hits on Google. Over 10 references in published books (see A9.com). If deserves an entry. Stbalbach 23:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If it is correct, then our "Historiography" article is incorrect or requires disambiguation. 192 word usages for such a broad notion means just this: neologism that didn't find its way into the mainstream yet. Mikkalai 00:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - That makes no sense at all. The terms are not the same they mean entirely different things, there is no need for disambiguation.
    - I am speaking about the disambiguation of the term "Historiography". Mikkalai 01:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - I dont think you know what the term historiophoty means, or its context and relationship to historiography. Why would you need a disambiguation? Its nonsensical.Stbalbach 01:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        What is wrong with you? I am speaking about the term Historiography, not "-photy". I am saying the wikipedia definition of h-graphy is not how it is defined in Historiophoty article. Mikkalai 02:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        Then edit the article .. why do you insist on deleting an article just because you dont agree with it? Stbalbach 03:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Look if you want to harp on "neologism" hang out in "recent articles" there are a few posted every hour. This term has legitimate notability, if for no other reason that Hayden White coined it, there is no reason it should not have an article, even if its new to you. If you object to it being one persons term and not widely known or used or whatever, you should address that in the text of the article like a normal editor, instead of pushing your POV through the VfD process. Stbalbach 01:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Please read wikipedia policies before giving advices. Precisely because of "being one persons term and not widely known or used or whatever" the article is fair game for VfD. Since it is also quite possible that my opinion is wrong, the deletion is a voted process. Mikkalai 01:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Please dont lecture me I know the rules. Hayden White is a very well known professional scholar. The term and the paper he wrote about it in is referenced in no less than 10 published books (see A9.com). As for "fair game", is this a game for you to delete peoples articles? Looking at your contributions it seems to be. I try to build Wikipedia, certain people try to tear it down, as a game. Edit the article if you dont like it. Thats the game. Stbalbach 01:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        the expression "fair game" refers to "Game (food)". I am sorry I have to lecture you in English, not on only in rules. The fact the term is mentioned in several books doesn't prove that it is in the mainstream use. And in half of books it is in cautious phrases, kind of ...historiophoty, using the term of Professor Hayden White..., confirming this is a neologism. As for "seems to be", yes, from time to time I switch from the contributing work to the cleanup one. Mikkalai 03:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        Then edit the article to reflect that. The fact it has 190+ google hits, is a term created by a well known and influential professional academic, and is referenced in no less than 10 published books makes it a term worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The time and energy of this discussion should have been spent expanding the stub. Stbalbach 03:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Historiography as a field of that type of research, lets be clear, the term was not used in a book it is from a single academic paper written by White--nixie 23:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Nixie. Radiant _* 09:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Nixie. --bainer 13:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a neologism. If kept, however, I would argue that the merge and redirect might be more appropriate to Hayden White since all evidence suggests that he is the only user of the term and his article already links to Historiography. Rossami (talk) 00:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Expanded the article.. additional context, history, use and sources. Stbalbach 05:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your work. What you did is called original research. Please provide what is called secondary sources that discuss historiophoty as discipline, not the primary sources that use the term, otherwise the deletion is due to the policy Wikipedia:No original research. Mikkalai 05:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks for your opinion, Mikkalai. Stbalbach 05:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Renamed article to the title of Hayden Whites essay with a redirect of Historiophoty. Stbalbach 15:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
keep as redirect. Mikkalai 15:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

The straight votes below are 2 "delete" and 2 "redirect". No one is arguing to keep the current article as is. Conducting my own review, I find sufficient independent and reputable Google hits to conclude that this buzz-word is no longer a neologism. Arguably, it is a trivial elaboration on the old "field trip" but that is not a sufficient reason for deletion.

I am going to exercise my discretion on this one and call it as a "keep". Further, I am going to override the recommendation of the other voters and keep it as an independent article for now. (That is, however, a decision that any future editor/reader can be bold and change.) I believe that there is sufficient content behind the topic that this could eventually become a viable encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Project Based Learning

Advocacy. Rick K 23:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Um yeah, it doesn't actually say what it is, just that it's good. 186,000 google hits though, maybe someone will turn it into an article (no vote ATM). Kappa 04:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a recent buzzword in education. Probably useful, but best merged with Education or with another recent trend therein. Radiant _* 09:04, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, edu-cruft. ComCat 05:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Education. Maybe someone later will create real article. Pavel Vozenilek

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (decided but not documented by user:Rfl). Pending deletion due to block-compress.

Livingod

I might be wrong, but this seems to be a Vanity page. --Sgeo^TC 00:13, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, vanity for some high school computer geek by the looks of it. Rje 01:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete: vanity DCEdwards1966 01:13, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete, this and its sister article Batuhan. I think it borders on nonsense. -Ld | talk 01:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete, this and its sister article Batuhan. --AlainV 03:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Also, please note that User:207.38.248.248 and User:Livingod ae trying to manipulate this vote by blanking this VfD entries, removing it from the VfD list, and removing the VfD tag from the article -- Chris 73 Talk 05:08, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Xezbeth 14:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Note that apparently the user succeeded to keep the article by removing it from the VfD page, I just discovered it by accident after cleaing up his latest vandalism. Thus the two month old dates above. andy 23:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, self-promotion, gaming of vfd process, generally poor content. Should probably consider banning the user for vandalism. -- Karada 23:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete without further delay. No need to wait another two weeks. —Korath (Talk) 23:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. The two-week period is already far more than over. Attempting to game the VfD process has merely succeeded in giving this article a sudden-death cutoff. -- Karada 23:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, empty article. Megan1967 05:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (decided but not documented by user:Rfl). Pending deletion due to block-compress.

Batuhan

This article is vanity for a high schooler from New York with an interest in particle physics (see also Livingod). Rje 01:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speedy delete, please. This is nonsense, no need for VfD. -Ld | talk 01:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete.Mikkalai 04:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Also, please note that User:207.38.248.248 and User:Livingod ae trying to manipulate this vote by blanking this VfD entries, removing it from the VfD list, and removing the VfD tag from the article -- Chris 73 Talk 05:08, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Xezbeth 14:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Note that apparently the user succeeded to keep the article by removing it from the VfD page, I just discovered it by accident after cleaing up his latest vandalism. Thus the two month old dates above. andy 23:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think it passes the "patent nonsense" threshold. Should be speedy deleted ASAP. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Livingod for this user's other stuff. -- Karada 23:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete without further delay. No need to wait another two weeks. —Korath (Talk) 23:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.

I agree with the nominator that this was a mere dictionary definition. Frankly, even with Kappa's expansion, I believe this still is a dicdef. But I believe it may be possible for this to expand into a full article. If, however, it has not been expanded in a reasonable amount of time, it may become appropriate to renominate the article.

Comment: The article itself was never tagged with {{vfd}}. It is therefore reasonable to assume that this discussion did not get the visibility it needed. Please be cautious before using this decision as precedent for any future decisions. Rossami (talk) 04:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Acousmatic

Delete It is a dictionary definition, and I have now made a acousmatic page at wiktionary to replace it. Superm401 23:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, as a type of music it has potential to be expanded. Kappa 03:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: expanded to include "acousmatic sound" in cinema. Kappa 04:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Megan1967 07:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 02:04, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

List of cantons in Quebec

This is just a list of townships (canton in Quebec). Too insubstantial to deserve an article. I would say merge to Quebec or somewhere, but, 1) In a list of something like 50 names, there are two existent articles, quite useless, and 2) the article states that the list is from 2001, and many of the towns don't even exist anymore. Delete, unless some use can be found for it to be merged somewhere. --Dmcdevit 23:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep You know how many similar American lists there are like this? Tons! And merge to Quebec? are you nuts? Urgh! - Earl Andrew 02:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Online encyclopedias are more useful when they are navigable. Kappa 02:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lists like this are useful, and for the towns that don't exist anymore... there are articles and categories such as List of ghost towns and Category:Ghost towns. --Deathphoenix 03:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have thought the towns had been abandoned, just that the administrative borders have been redefined... Average Earthman 09:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Sorry, allow me to clarify. I meant that the list and category both show a bunch of articles about towns that don't exist anymore, not that these towns necessarily belong in those lists. --Death phoenix 17:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but it would be great to see it updated. - SimonP 03:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Heavens! Just a list of townships! Where will it end? Wikipedia might actually end up documenting the majority of everything in existence, thereby becoming the first real encyclopedia in recorded history! Oh, that's a keep, by the way.--Gene_poole 04:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep but annotate. Radiant _* 09:04, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and update if possible. It's a clearly defined geographical list, of a sensible definition and sufficient length to be of some use but not so open ended it becomes ludicrous. Average Earthman 09:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. CJCurrie 00:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - we have list of counties of (STATE) Saopaulo1 07:20, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Spinboy 03:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Esoteric, but semi-finite and verifiable. Needs annotation and general cleanup, but this is perfectly useable as is. - Lucky 6.9 05:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
keep. It's Quebec we need to delete. Avriette 01:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. 2 votes to 1 to delete for content. What compels me to delete even on such small numbers, though, is that this is an unresolved copyright violation. I am deleting it as such. Rossami (talk) 04:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

British American Institute

Advertisment for a school that teaches english. No potential to become encyclopedic and as far as educational instutions go this is not sufficiently notable to be included in wikipedia.--nixie 23:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: More notable than some schools that have been kept; however, it is probably a copy vio as it is a cut and paste from here—British American Institute. DialUp 00:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
delete. that makes it either copyvio or advert. Avriette 01:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep providing the article is edited to make it encyclopedic. Sirkumsize 04:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash

If this were speculation that there were going to be such a movie, it would not be appropriate, but instead this is reporting that such speculation is wrong. Nonencyclopedic. anti-speculation. Rick K 23:43, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

'Delete Because the movie does not exist, it does not deserve an article. If the planning of the movie was interesting in some way, or if the rumor was significant, they would deserve articles, but the movie does not.Superm401 01:08, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable (yet). Megan1967 06:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect - Even though I read about this in Entertainment Weekly, redirect it to Freddy Vs. Jason or Evil Dead Saopaulo1 07:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Why? This is anti-speculation, there is no such movie. Rick K 23:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
delete. and ash would kick both their asses anyways. Avriette 01:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote. I am notorius for making speculative articles on Wikipedia. Some people say "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". --TheSamurai 02:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. speculation. Fuzheado | Talk 03:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate" class="metadata" id="vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
+{| width = "100%"
+|-
+! style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | <span style="color:gray;">&lt;</span> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 21|March 21]]
+! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 23|March 23]] <span style="color:gray;">&gt;</span>
+|}
+</div>
 == March 22 ==
-***Regular VfD voters are kindly requested to take a look at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2]].
-<!-- New votes to the bottom, please. -->
-{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus}}
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Duhfault}}
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Journal of Young Adult Ministry}}
@@ Line 41: / Line 44: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ambition (cards)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chreaster}}
-{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rusty foster}}
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ryan Harvey}}
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cowsay}}
@@ Line 52: / Line 54: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ella Peterson}}
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fuckula}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mikko Välimäki}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Operation Barbarossa Orders: Directive 21}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Donnie May}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Unparalleled}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Teenybopper}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Northern Ireland Pound}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Definitions of cult}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lih Young}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_really_really_stupid_article_ideas_that_you_should_not_create}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audioscope}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historiophoty}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Project Based Learning}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Livingod}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Batuhan}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Acousmatic}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of cantons in Quebec}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/British American Institute}}
+{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash}}